Tariff Without Light: A Northern Citizen’s Lament on Power, Justice, and the Burden of Band A
By Adamkolo Mohammed Ibrahim
In the quiet hours of a sweltering April afternoon in Damaturu, when the sun hangs heavily over the Sahel and the wind carries more dust than relief, one is compelled to reflect, with a certain moral unease, on the condition of electricity supply in our land. It is not merely a question of infrastructure. It is a question of justice, dignity and the lived experience of the ordinary Nigerian household. In recent days, the notices issued by the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) and the Yola Electricity Distribution Company (YEDC) regarding the planned maintenance of the Jos-Bauchi-Gombe 330kV transmission line have brought this matter into sharp and painful focus.
The announcement, which covers the period from 9 April to 22 May 2026, indicates that communities across Adamawa, Taraba, Yobe, Borno, Bauchi and Gombe States will experience repeated daytime outages, lasting from 09:00 to 18:00, for at least four days each week. The technical justification is clear enough. The stringing of Optical Ground Wire across a 276 km transmission corridor is no small undertaking. It is necessary for system stability and future grid performance. One does not quarrel with maintenance. Indeed, maintenance is the hallmark of seriousness in engineering systems. Yet, the burden of such maintenance must be equitably shared. It must not be placed disproportionately upon those who are already paying the highest tariff in the system.
At the heart of this matter lies the Band A tariff regime. Under the current structure, Band A customers are charged approximately ₦209.50 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), on the assumption that they will receive a minimum of 20 hours of electricity supply per day. This represents a dramatic escalation when compared to the pre-2024 tariff landscape, where effective rates for many households ranged between ₦50 and ₦70 per kWh, depending on location and subsidy structures. The implication is stark. Electricity, once a subsidised social good, has increasingly become a premium commodity.
National data released by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) in 2024 indicated that Band A customers constitute roughly 15% of total electricity consumers in Nigeria, yet they account for a disproportionately higher share of revenue collection. The policy intent was clear. It sought to stabilise the sector through cost-reflective pricing while shielding lower bands from immediate tariff shocks. However, the implementation has revealed significant distortions. In many instances, consumers have been reclassified into Band A without corresponding improvement in supply reliability. This raises serious questions regarding regulatory enforcement and distributive fairness.
Permit me, at this juncture, to descend from the realm of statistics to the domain of lived reality. There was a time, not too distant, when a modest household expenditure of ₦7,000 on electricity tokens could yield approximately 120 kWh of energy. This quantity, though not abundant, was sufficient to sustain basic domestic life for nearly two months. Refrigeration was possible. Fans operated through the night. Air conditioning, though used sparingly, provided respite during the harshest hours. Small household enterprises thrived. Women sold chilled water, zobo and tamarind beverage (called ‘ardebc in Hausa and Kanuri). Children studied under electric light. Life retained a semblance of order.
Today, that equilibrium has been shattered. A payment of ₦11,000 now yields scarcely 48 kWh. The arithmetic is unforgiving. Consumption has not increased. Indeed, in many households, it has drastically declined. Air conditioners have been sold. Refrigerators sit idle. Families ration electricity as though it were a scarce medicinal commodity. Yet, despite this reduction in usage, tokens are exhausted within two weeks. This is not merely an economic burden. It is a psychological strain. It erodes confidence in public institutions and breeds a sense of abandonment.
The irony becomes even more pronounced when one considers the actual supply conditions in many parts of the North-East. Empirical observations and community reports suggest that in cities such as Damaturu and Maiduguri, electricity is available, on average, for no more than four to six hours per day. In some cases, supply occurs twice daily, each lasting a few hours. This translates to approximately 18 to 20 hours of darkness within every 24-hour cycle. Under such circumstances, the classification of these areas under Band A becomes not only questionable but indefensible.
One must ask, with all due respect to the authorities, whether it is just to charge a household for 20 hours of supply when it receives less than one-third of that duration. The principle of cost-reflective tariff must be matched by service-reflective delivery. Anything short of this constitutes a breach of the implicit social contract between the state and its citizens.
The broader economic implications are equally troubling. Small and medium enterprises, which constitute the backbone of local economies, are collapsing under the weight of energy costs. A barber who once relied on grid electricity now spends three times as much on petrol for generators. A welder struggles to remain competitive. Cold room operators face spoilage losses. Informal sector traders, particularly women, are disproportionately affected. The cumulative effect is a contraction in local economic activity, increased unemployment and deepening poverty.
Health outcomes are not immune to this crisis. The months of March to May represent the peak of the hot season in Northern Nigeria. Temperatures frequently exceed 40°C. In such conditions, the absence of reliable electricity exacerbates the spread of heat-related illnesses. Medical practitioners have reported increases in cases of dehydration, heat exhaustion and meningitis. Children, in particular, are vulnerable. The inability to refrigerate vaccines and essential medicines further complicates public health interventions.
It is also necessary to situate this discussion within the broader fiscal context. Over the past two decades, successive Nigerian governments have reportedly expended trillions of naira on power sector reforms, generation expansion and transmission upgrades. Yet, the outcomes have fallen short of expectations. Installed generation capacity remains underutilised. Transmission constraints persist. Distribution inefficiencies continue unabated. The gap between investment and service delivery demands rigorous scrutiny.
One is reminded of the words of a respected elder in Kano, who remarked during a public forum: “Electricity in Nigeria is like a promise that never matures.” This statement, though anecdotal, captures the sentiment of millions. It is a sentiment rooted in repeated experiences of hope followed by disappointment.
In light of the ongoing maintenance exercise, the issue of tariff adjustment becomes both urgent and unavoidable. If supply is to be reduced for a defined period, then tariffs must be correspondingly adjusted. This is not a matter of generosity. It is a matter of equity. Several policy options present themselves.
First, a proportional tariff reduction could be implemented. If customers are to lose approximately 50% of their expected supply hours during the maintenance period, then a 50% reduction in Band A tariff should be applied for the duration. This would bring the effective rate from ₦209.50/kWh to approximately ₦104.75/kWh.
Second, a consumption credit mechanism could be introduced. Customers could receive energy credits equivalent to the estimated supply deficit. These credits would be automatically applied to subsequent billing cycles.
Third, a temporary reclassification of affected feeders could be considered. Areas experiencing reduced supply could be reclassified to Band B or C for the maintenance period, thereby aligning tariff with actual service levels.
Fourth, targeted subsidies could be provided to vulnerable households, particularly those with medical needs or dependent children. Such subsidies would mitigate the social impact of prolonged outages.
The sustainability of the current tariff regime must also be interrogated. A system that imposes high costs without delivering commensurate service is unlikely to command public trust. Without trust, compliance declines. Meter bypassing increases. Revenue collection suffers. The entire sector enters a vicious cycle of inefficiency.
It is therefore imperative for policymakers to adopt a holistic approach. Tariff reforms must be accompanied by measurable improvements in supply reliability. Regulatory oversight must be strengthened. Consumer feedback mechanisms must be institutionalised. Transparency must become the norm rather than the exception.
In conclusion, the present situation calls for empathy, responsibility and decisive action. The people of the North-East are not asking for charity. They are asking for fairness. They are asking that the price they pay reflects the service they receive. They are asking that during a period of planned deprivation, the burden be shared, not imposed.
As we endure the heat of April and look towards the long weeks of maintenance ahead, one hopes that those entrusted with the management of our power sector will rise to the occasion. A tariff that ignores reality is not merely an economic miscalculation. It is a moral failing. And in a society striving for equity and progress, such a failing must not be allowed to persist.
Dr. Adamkolo Mohammed Ibrahim, PhD, Sabon Fegi, Damaturu, Yobe State, Nigeria. E-mail: [email protected]